Roy Warden, Editor

Common Sense II
1015 W. Prince Road, #131-182
Tucson Arizona 85705
roywarden@cox.net

SUPPLEMENT TO NOTICE OF TORT CLAIM FILED AGAINST THE

CITY OF TUCSON ON FEBRUARY 03, 2010

February 25, 2010

Mayor Bob Walkup

Tucson City Mayor
244 W. Alameda Street
Tucson, Arizona 85701

RE: Notice of Federal Tort Claim against Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, Tucson
City Attorney Mike Rankin, Tucson City Prosecutor Alan Merritt, Tucson
City Manager Mike Lecher, the Tucson City Council, Tucson Police
Officers Dormand and Friedman, the Tucson Police Department and The
City of Tucson.

1. I am providing this document to supplement the Notice of Claim I filed on

February 03, 2010 pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act and A.R.S. 12-
821.01 in response to the malicious and criminal actions that you and the
other Tucson officials noted above, while acting in your individual and
official capacities, have committed against me, including but not limited to
conspiracy, defamation, false arrest, the unlawful confiscation of my
vehicle via police entrapment, malicious prosecution for driving under a
suspended license, intentional infliction of mental distress, and intentional
deprivation of my civil rights under USC 42 § 1983 and USC 18 §241-244.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

2. Since December 2003 I have been employed as an unpaid political activist

working on behalf of the people of Pima County Arizona, and as the
publisher of Common Sense II and CSII Press, political newsletters
documenting, investigating and exposing corruption within the criminal
justice system in the City of Tucson, Pima County and State of Arizona.

3. Common Sense Two and CSII Press are currently distributed to more than
1,500 local attorneys, prosecutors, public defenders and judges, some of
whom have contacted me to offer advice, opinion and specific information
to assist me in the furtherance of my investigations.

1
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

Police Entrapment

4. On August 03, 2009, the Tucson Police Department was called to my

residence, as they had on at least four other occasions, to enforce a Pima
County Superior Court Order regarding the custody of my roommates’ 1
minor child, and the failure of the child’s father to return the child to the
mother’s residence as per the schedule set forth by Order of the Court.

5. On at least three of these occasions (1) the investigating officer had read
the Court Order and verified in fact the child had not been returned as set
forth by the schedule ordered by the Court, (2) the investigating officer
had gone to the father’s house to explain to the father his requirement to
obey the Order of the Court, (3) the child was subsequently returned by
the father to the mother’s house.

6. On one occasion the investigating officer returned the child himself in a

TPD vehicle.

7. On August 03, 2009 the investigating officer, (Officer Dormand, #48380)

responded as set forth in paragraph 4 and 5(1).

8. However; subsequent to reading of the Court Order, Officer Dormand told

my roommate she (Officer Dormand) would drive my roommate to her
former husband’s residence to recover her child, even though on all
previous occasions either my roommate’s former husband or a police
officer had brought the child home.

9. My roommate came into our home to get my shoes and bag and explained
to me what was happening. However; when she exited and approached
Officer Dorman, the officer suddenly changed her mind. She said. “You’ll
have to follow me in your car. I am not a taxi service.”

10. My roommate explained to Officer Dormand (1) she was legally blind and
therefore could not drive the family car and (2) the car’s registration had
expired.

11. Officer Dormand made some cell phone calls and then became insistent.

12. Officer Dormand asked my roommate if I (Roy Warden) would drive the
car. Officer Dormand said if we didn’t follow her in the family car she
would not go to my roommate’s former husband’s residence and my
roommate would not get her son that night.

1
Due to concerns regarding personal safety, my “roommate” has requested her name not be included in this
public document.

2
13. In sum and substance Officer Dormand informed my roommate: “I know
there are issues with Roy’s Drivers License and the car’s registration. But if
he doesn’t drive, you won’t get to see your son tonight.”

14. At all times during the several conversations between Officer Dormand
and my roommate on the night of August 03, 2009, my car was within
several feet of Officer Dormand, with my expired registration clearly
visible to the officer as it was illuminated by the Officer’s vehicle spotlight.

15. My roommate re-entered our house and informed me regarding Officer

Dormand’s new requirement.

16. In sum and substance I told my roommate: “The cops all know I have
expired registration and a revoked license. I wonder if they are setting me
up?”

17. We exited the house and waited in our vehicle for more than five minutes
while Officer Dormand spoke with others on her cell phone.

18. Eventually Officer Dorman drove away; instead of directly following her I
took an alternative route to my roommate’s former husband’s residence.

19. When we got to the location we parked on the main street. Officer Dorman
said we had to wait for back-up, even though on all previous occasions
only a single officer’s response was required. My roommate informed
Officer Dorman that her son had Cerebral Palsy.

20. A second TPD vehicle arrived. After consulting with Officer Dorman the
second officer approached the car. His name tag said “Friedman.”
(#50459)

21. Subsequently; we complied with Officer Dorman’s request to park our car
near my roommate’s former husband’s residence.

22. Before my roommate’s son was brought out and seated in the car, Officer
Dorman said to me: “I know there are issues with your car. I decided to
personally overlook that. Don’t worry about anything. You will be able to
drive him (my roommate’s son) home.”

23. My roommate’s son came out and was seated in the car.

24. Officer Friedman came up to me. In sum and substance he said: “You are
driving with a revoked license in a car with expired registration. We are
going to write you a ticket and confiscate your car. You’ll all have to walk
home.”

3
 25. My roommate asked Officer Friedman: “My son needs braces and he can’t
walk. Can you drive us home?”

26. Officer Friedman refused to help. I exited the car to retrieve some items
from the trunk and expressed angry sentiments regarding TPD “setting me
up” to Officer Friedman.

27. I angrily informed both officers I had appeared in front of the Tucson City
Council to speak in support of higher wages for TPD officers and was
working to get illegal immigrants out of the community “…for your (police)
safety and ours because we all know they commit violent crimes 4 times as
often as American citizens.”

28. Officer Friedman replied: “I was shot in the leg by an American citizen.”
Then my roommate and I walked home.

29. Subsequently; my roommate’s former husband drove my roommate’s son

to our residence, as he had on all previous occasions when he was
requested to do so by TPD officers, and as provided by the Order of the
Pima County Superior Court.

Notice to Assert Entrapment Defense

30. By letter dated October 23, 2009 I informed the Tucson City Court and
Tucson City Prosecutor Alan Merritt of my intent to assert the affirmative
defense of entrapment in Tucson City Court Case #TR 09091490. (See
Exhibit One)

31. Subsequently; I conducted extensive taped interviews with TPD Officers

Dormand, Friedman and Lieutenant Lapedus who was their superior
officer on the night of August 03, 2009.

32. These interviews revealed significant evidence regarding actions taken by

Officers Dormand and Friedman on the night of August 03, 2009 which
were in direct violation of Tucson Police Department General Orders, and
which confirmed my entrapment defense.

33. Lieutenant Lapedus told me what procedures I should take for obtaining
recorded communications between the field officers on August 03, 2009.

34. However; upon my application to obtain the recorded communications

Tucson City Prosecutor Alan Merritt refused to provide me with the
communications I requested.

35. On January 05, 2010 I filed a Motion to Compel Discovery and Request for
Waiver of Fees.

4
 36. The Motion to Compel Discovery stated additional facts and allegations in
support of my Entrapment Defense as set forth below:

“Defendant herein declares the documents which the Tucson City

Prosecutor has failed to produce will set forth the communications
between Tucson Police Department Officers and Officials on the night
of August 03, 2009 and will prove TPD Officer Dormand (1) KNEW
Defendant’s vehicle registration had been expired for two years, and
(2) KNEW Defendant’s license had been suspended when she (3)
informed (my roommate) in sum and substance, “I know there are
issues with the car’s registration and Roy’s license. But if you do not
have Roy drive you over to (roommate former husband’s) house you
will not see your son tonight,” and otherwise instructed Defendant to
operate his motor vehicle for the purposes of retrieving (my
roommate’s) son from (my roommate’s) former husband who was in
violation of a Pima County Superior Court Custody and Visitation
Order, thus establishing the defense of entrapment.”

37. Instead of supplying the requested documents, Tucson City Prosecutor

Alan Merritt filed a Motion to Dismiss the action pending against me,
citing reasons of “prosecutorial discretion.”

38. Subsequently; the judge GRANTED the State’s Motion to Dismiss.

39. Because of my poverty I was unable to pay the impound and towing fees.
Eventually I sold my vehicle for $425.00 to an individual who in turn paid
the towing, impound, and storage fees, resulting in a $3,075.00 loss to me
from the value of vehicle.

CONCLUSION

The above Statement of Facts sets forth an alarming record regarding the
unlawful conduct of Tucson City Police officers, and describes a singular incident
which is part of a continuing pattern of oppression and intimidation, intended by
Tucson City Officials and employees to dissuade me from the exercise of political
rights and public disclosure of information regarding Tucson City Open Border
Policy.

Ever since the “Riot in Armory Park” on April 10, 2006 when I Burned a Mexican
Flag in symbolic protest to the policies of the Mexican government, and otherwise
publically spoke in opposition to 15,000 Mexican Flag waving, Open Border Pro
Raza advocates who proclaimed, “Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote!”
Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup, The Tucson City Council, Assistant Police Chief
Kathleen Robinson, The Tucson Police Department, Tucson City Attorney Mike
Rankin, Tucson City Prosecutor Alan Merritt and other public officials employed
by the City of Tucson, have conspired and engaged in a series of unlawful acts
intended (1) to protect the financial interest of local contractors and businessmen

5
who depend upon a continual flow of low cost Illegal Mexican labor, (2) to
promote the political and financial objectives of the Mexican government and
Left Wing Open Border Activist Non-Profit Organizations, and (3) to deprive me
of the lawful exercise of expressive rights protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that even a temporary deprivation of
fundamental Constitutional rights results in "...irreparable injury." The criminal
acts of Tucson City Officials have caused me significant economic harm and
emotional distress, and have prevented the publication of my news service and
the exercise of my expressive rights under the First Amendment.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 12-821.01(A), I am stating the following remedies for which I

will settle my claim against the City of Tucson and its officials:

I. A written public apology from the Mayor of Tucson, the Tucson City
Council, the Tucson Police Department and the City of Tucson for
violating my civil rights.

II. Mandatory civil rights training for all officials employed by the City of
Tucson, the Mayor of Tucson, the Tucson City Council and the Tucson
Police Department.

III. Monetary compensation in the amount of $10,000 for my economic loss,

emotional distress, loss of my civil rights, damage to my reputation, and
time / resources spent in defending myself against the unlawful charges
set forth in TR 09091490.

I do not wish to resolve this matter through litigation; instead I hope to improve
community relations between the citizens of Tucson and their various public
institutions. I would prefer to engage in a constructive dialog to accomplish the
following:

IV. Improved community understanding of the obligations of public servants

and the right of the citizenry, via street protest and by other means, to hold
their public officials and police officers accountable for negligent acts, acts
of intentional malfeasance and criminal acts.

V. The restoration of the honor and dignity of the Office of Mayor, the Tucson
City Council, and the Tucson Police Department.

VI. Assurance that henceforth, the Office of Tucson City Mayor, the Tucson
City Council and the Tucson Police Department will desist in their present
policy of encouraging Open Border Lobby Activists to break federal
immigration law, and to apply the Rule of Law without regard to political
favoritism or consequences, and without regard to accomplishing a
political agenda.

6
VII. Assurance that henceforth the City of Tucson, the Tucson City Council and
the Tucson Police Department will abide by the Constitutions of the
United States and the State of Arizona.

Should you refuse this request for relief, I reserve the right to litigate under state
and/or federal law, as appropriate, and specifically under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Should
this become necessary, significant and full restitution will be sought along with
attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 upon prevailing on the merits.

Additionally; I plan to file criminal charges with the U.S. Department of Justice
as the facts become known. Please contact me at your earliest convenience as to
whether we may be able to amicably resolve this matter. I look forward to hearing
from you.

Sincerely,

Roy Warden

7
EXHIBIT ONE

8
Alan Merritt
Tucson City Attorney
130 W Alameda Street
Tucson AZ 85701

Filed and Hand Delivered on October 23, 2009

Re: TR: 9091490

Dear Mr. Merritt:

Regarding the above captioned action: As I have already informed you and the
Court I will be advancing the affirmative defense of entrapment, as defined by a
series of cases including but not limited to the following:

1. State v Rabon, 100 Ariz. 344

2. State v Boccelli, 105 Ariz. 495
3. State v Rocha-Rocha, 188 Ariz. 292 (App)
4. United States v Hsieu Hui Mei Chen, 754 F.2d 817 (1985)

As advised by one of my TPD contacts, I am requesting you provide me with the

transcripts of the MTC communications, radio communications and dispatch
dates/times for all communications between Officers Friedman and Officer
Dorman, who were the officers involved in the incident which is now before the
Court, and communications between each of them and their superiors, from the
time Officer Dorman was dispatched to my residence to the time my car was
impounded, and towed.

Additionally; I am researching various TPD General Orders which directly

pertain to my defense. I am assured that they are available on the internet;
however should I have any trouble locating what I need I will not hesitate to call
upon you for assistance.

Yours Truly,

Roy Warden